Was Saddam's execution a sop to Shiite militas?

The cell phone video of Saddam's execution raises troubling questions. Was Saddam hanged by Shiite militamen? If so, was his s(p)eedy death a sop to Muqtada al-Sadr? Paul Hoosen of Progressive Values writes:

This new evidence strongly suggests that the Saddam execution was rushed through to satisfy this militia group and the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and that the normal path of justice in the "new" Iraq was deliberately avoided. Saddam had more trials pending on far more serious charges and also was facing civil charges in at least one lawsuit filed in the U.S. None of these important cases are likely to be heard except for the civil suit in the U.S. now.

It did seem odd that so many people in the death chamber were shouting "Muqtada!"

Comments

[Swopa]

The short answer is, yes.

As Juan Cole wrote in his Salon piece, Sadr's faction demanded Saddam's execution as a condition (IIRC) for ending their boycott of the government.

[Frank Wilhoit]

There is an important point here, but it lies at a considerable further distance along the conceptual path whose first step you have outlined. Let me see if I can unpack it for you.

Saddam was a politician. The fact that he was a totalitarian politician makes him no less a politician.

This means that everything he ever said or did was a pander. Everything. No exceptions, ever, not once.

That means that he--Saddam Hussein, the individual, as a historical actor--did not exist.

The point of the "dictator" label is to deny this. The conventional theory of totalitarianism is precisely opposite to reality. We call Saddam (or Mao, or Stalin, or fill-in-the-blank) a "dictator" in order to make him a scapegoat, to throw the blame on him as an individual. The purpose of this is to exonerate his followers, the people to whom he pandered. This is wrong. The followers are to blame. They are *exclusively* to blame, and *each* of them is *fully* to blame.

They must not be exonerated. No dictator's followers may ever be exonerated. We got where we are by letting people off the hook.

We were all taught in school that totalitarianism is, above all, intrinsically inauthentic; that it comes about when a charismatic madman, perhaps along with a small group of incredibly determined followers, somehow "takes over".

That is wrong. Totalitarianism is always the *authentic* expression of some segment of a society, a segment large and coherent enough to strike for power, even if neither large nor coherent enough to win elections. The working definition of "large enough" is nowhere near 50% but it is certainly much more than "a handful of zealots".

[cfrost]

We'll figure this Iraq thing out. We just need to punch the tarbaby a little harder.

[blowback]

I think there is a more prosaic reason. The execution would have been the responsibility of the Interior Ministry in Baghdad. This is recognized as being controlled by SCIRI. So either SCIRI has been heavily penetrated by Mahdi Army supporters or SCIRI wanted to put the blame for Saddam's execution squarely on the Mahdi Army which is the Shiite militia that has done most in the past to unite Sunni and Shiite insurgents. This is just a preparatory disinformation exercise for the coming assault by the Americans on the Mahdi Army.

[mudkitty]

The footage all looks really Hollywood to me.

I don't get why they didn't bury him in an unmarked grave. That was a huge mistake.

[Cass]

"This is just a preparatory disinformation exercise for the coming assault by the Americans on the Mahdi Army."

Its true Sadr has sounded pretty ecumenical in the past, but there's doubt in anyone's mind his followers are spearheading the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Baghdad... as well as gradually sidelining their rival Shi'ite factions.

And if Bush is insane enough to try and play divide-and-conquer with the Shi'ites, neither the occupation nor his presidency will be around for another New Year's.

[Cass]

"The footage all really looks really Hollywood to me."

It looks shoddy and low-budget, and as I said before, more like a terrorist murder than a state-sponsored execution. Its hard to imagine what kind of images could more efficiently broadcast to the world the running disaster they're trying to sell to us as "the Iraqi government".

[Jen]

Hi Lindsey,
I know the Atrios rule: readers shouldn't ask bloggers to discuss their pet issues.

But I wish someone would talk about the elimination of Affirmative Action in Michigan. This story has gotten almost no national exposure.

Here is one story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122902051.html

[Jen]

Eek, I apologize for misspelling your name, Lindsay.

[epistemology]

Frank Wilhoit:

Of course war, totalitarianism, and other inhumanities are always the expression of a popular will that goes beyond the leaders.

And the responsibility for the brutality of any movement certainly lies with the supporters, but you go too far:

We call Saddam (or Mao, or Stalin, or fill-in-the-blank) a "dictator" in order to make him a scapegoat, to throw the blame on him as an individual. The purpose of this is to exonerate his followers, the people to whom he pandered. This is wrong. The followers are to blame. They are *exclusively* to blame, and *each* of them is *fully* to blame.

So each supporter of a brutal leader is equally guilty of every torture and murder. This implies they are all fair game for execution.
You make it explicit:

We got where we are by letting people off the hook.

We must kill them all? I think not. We got where we are precisely with this sort of thinking. If the killing is to stop, especially in the middle east, some of the vast numbers of supporters of violence will be let off the hook.

I'm sorry for any personal loss you feel will go unavenged but your children's children will thank you for your forbearance.

[Paul Hooson]

Lindsay, I deeply appreciate your website, and also helping to carry this important story about the serious questions surrounding the Saddam execution in Iraq that appear to have some suspect connection to the Shiite militia group members associated with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Today, I have another important story dealing with press freedom suppression and media control in Iraq. Yesterday, a TV station independent of the Iraqi government was shut down because a reporter wore a black suit while reporting the Saddam execution story. The government claimed that this proved some sympathy for Saddam Hussein as an excuse to close down one of the few TV stations not run by the Iraqi government.

But even the American military CENTCOM beginning with the 2003 Coalition Provisional Authority run by Paul Bremer began a crackdown of press freedom in Iraq starting with CPA ORDER NUMBER 14 which would imprison Iraqi reporters or newspaper editors for a year for reporting stories not favorable to the American occupation forces.

A media management organization based in Washington D.C., The Lincoln Group, was even put on the Pentagon budget and paid $100 million dollars as part of the U.S. military's "Psychological Operations" management of the Iraqi media. Iraqi newspapers were paid to run stories written by the Pentagon for example.

Readers can check out this feature at my website, www.progressivevalues.blogspot.com

[Chewbacca]

Check out this excellent anti-war video, and please help to spread it;

Guernica Iraq
http://911blogger.com/node/5219

[Madison Guy]

I was wondering, in the aftermath of Saddam's grotesque execution by that gloating death squad, why there wasn't more commentary about George Bush's role the last time he was involved with executions, when he was the Death Penalty Decider for the state of Texas -- in which capacity he had been known to do his own share of gloating. Poking about on the Web, I came across an October 2000 piece about Bush published by Derrick Z. Jackson in the Boston Globe. It seems remarkably prescient now -- especially the title, "Bush's Death Factory."